[the truth]

Originally Posted by Dollface

I agree with this

you agree its better to kill the baby just in case the parent isnt a very good parent? what kind of logic is that?

[Jack_]

Well it's not exactly nice or desirable but I'm pro choice. And I definitely don't think it should be outlawed either, much like drugs things like this being illegal make the whole thing incredibly dangerous because people will still go through with it if they want to anyway.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by the truth

you agree its better to kill the baby just in case the parent isnt a very good parent? what kind of logic is that?

you said i had a great post on the first page???

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Well it's not exactly nice or desirable but I'm pro choice. And I definitely don't think it should be outlawed either, much like drugs things like this being illegal make the whole thing incredibly dangerous because people will still go through with it if they want to anyway.

what about the choices, the pressure to abort, the time and resources to allow the mother and father the information and specialists at hand to open all options to them....adoption, fostering , surrogacy etc so many parents who do abort have their lives destroyed by regrt forever, not to forget the killing of the innocent baby in the womb. the biggets mistake of pro choices is reducing this massive disaster to a male v female petty battle. just as man females are killed off as male babies. it should never ever be a gender issue. its all about proactively ensuring all options are on the table in every single hospital and no pressure is ever applied to the parents to abort. sadly as we see with the dreadful state of the nhs, the standards vary massively as does the service provide with the post code lottery

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

you said i had a great post on the first page???

you did but i cant believe what you agreed to on the 2nd page , this particula line

" I think it's better than allowing people who might not handle being a parent, become a parent"
you agreed with this????

[Bluerang1]

Pro-Life. But tbh we're overpopulated anyway. My deal is don't have sex if you don't want a baby.

Now in terms of rape, I don't think the baby should have to suffer not experiencing life but as the mother had no say in the case I guess... :/

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Bluerang1

Pro-Life. But tbh we're overpopulated anyway. My deal is don't have sex if you don't want a baby.

Now in terms of rape, I don't think the baby should have to suffer not experiencing life but as the mother had no say in the case I guess... :/

But if it doesn't experience life how can it suffer?

[Jord]

I personally think it's wrong, however, it is entirely up to the parents of the unborn child. If they want to have an abortion, for whatever reason, then that's their choice and nobody else's.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

But if it doesn't experience life how can it suffer?

are you serious???

its living in the womb?

by that logic why not strangle the baby with the umbilical cord

[Sam:)]

I kind of think its one of them each to there own sort of thing. I dont think a lot of people think about the decision they're making and are psychologically ready. I just think a lot more assessment needs to go on before an abortion takes place. It should somewhat have a long interview about what she views as the pros and cons, informing the woman of what exactly is going to happen and discussing alternate ways (Adoption etc.) I can see peoples reasoning behind objecting to it but I just dont think its fair to force someone to have a child, nor do I agree with it becoming a form of contraception. It should be seen as a last resort, available but not seen as an easy option. Now a days with condoms being basically sold everywhere you have to be quite dosy to willingly have un-protected sex.

If it were to happen to me I think as a bloke, if abortion was easily available here and I did get someone pregnant I would probably ask her to abort it. Which I know I would regret, its one of them things that would never leave my mind.

[Dollface]

Originally Posted by the truth

you agree its better to kill the baby just in case the parent isnt a very good parent? what kind of logic is that?

If a woman gets pregnant when she doesn't want a baby, wouldn't it be better to abort it (considering it isn't a fully formed "baby" yet) ..rather than giving birth to it knowing she doesn't want it, probably not giving it the love it deserves, and possibly neglecting it?
"Kill the baby" what a pathetic attempt at guilt-tripping

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Once again, Embryos are not babies, they are a collection of non-sentient cells. They are about as close to being a baby as your fingernails are.

I'm sorry but this is only true at the early development stage... beyond 12 weeks gestation you're simply incorrect. Abortions are legally carried out until 20+ weeks.

By implication, in terms of morality, aborting at say 16 weeks is logically no different to drowning a baby at birth. It is no more or less human, and a newborn has no more or less "life experience". If you're defining sentience as consciousness, then a 16 week old fetus is sentient. If you're defining sentience as having a concept or fear of mortality, then you might as well advocate the postpartum abortion of toddlers, because they have neither.

Incidentally... bucket-drowning was a fairly common method of "birth control", up until a hundred or so years ago...


Anyway, all I'm saying is, you are perfectly entitled to define your own moral stance on the issue of abortion... but, I find it really grating when people use the (completely inaccurate) "bundle of cells" justification. It's true for a couple of weeks, but throughout the majority of a pregnancy, it's just a completely false statement.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its necessary and should be encouraged a lot more in the 3rd world

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by the truth

complete and utter nonsense. the sake of the child that could have been? the child is dead , killed forever , silently temrinated and never given a split second of life on earth to fulfill their potential.

It is not a child, it is an embryo without any development, you can say 'kill the child/baby' all you want, guilt tripping people won't get them to change their minds.. If we go by that logic and every single doctor told women with unwanted pregnancies that they shouldn't have one because they are killing a baby, then not only would we have a whole lot more people in the world, when we're already overpopulated anyway, but there would also be children in the world who weren't wanted and that could lead to them being neglected or abused because women have been forced to keep a baby that they didn't want and couldn't connect or bond with.. If an embryo is terminated before it starts developing into a baby, then it doesn't suffer, it has no knowledge that it ever existed, so how would it suffer?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Its necessary and should be encouraged a lot more in the 3rd world

If the 3rd world could afford abortions then it wouldn't need population control.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm sorry but this is only true at the early development stage... beyond 12 weeks gestation you're simply incorrect. Abortions are legally carried out until 20+ weeks.

By implication, in terms of morality, aborting at say 16 weeks is logically no different to drowning a baby at birth. It is no more or less human, and a newborn has no more or less "life experience". If you're defining sentience as consciousness, then a 16 week old fetus is sentient. If you're defining sentience as having a concept or fear of mortality, then you might as well advocate the postpartum abortion of toddlers, because they have neither.

Incidentally... bucket-drowning was a fairly common method of "birth control", up until a hundred or so years ago...


Anyway, all I'm saying is, you are perfectly entitled to define your own moral stance on the issue of abortion... but, I find it really grating when people use the (completely inaccurate) "bundle of cells" justification. It's true for a couple of weeks, but throughout the majority of a pregnancy, it's just a completely false statement.

Abortions after 12 weeks must be recommended by a doctor. I'm aware that there is some manipulation of that law, and I would like to see that ended. Only for serious medical complications should abortions be carried out after 12 weeks. But I still agree with abortion up to that point if that's the choice of the woman because I believe every child should be a wanted child.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If the 3rd world could afford abortions then it wouldn't need population control.

That does not make sense and i am not talking about them affording it.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm sorry but this is only true at the early development stage... beyond 12 weeks gestation you're simply incorrect. Abortions are legally carried out until 20+ weeks.

By implication, in terms of morality, aborting at say 16 weeks is logically no different to drowning a baby at birth. It is no more or less human, and a newborn has no more or less "life experience". If you're defining sentience as consciousness, then a 16 week old fetus is sentient. If you're defining sentience as having a concept or fear of mortality, then you might as well advocate the postpartum abortion of toddlers, because they have neither.

Incidentally... bucket-drowning was a fairly common method of "birth control", up until a hundred or so years ago...


Anyway, all I'm saying is, you are perfectly entitled to define your own moral stance on the issue of abortion... but, I find it really grating when people use the (completely inaccurate) "bundle of cells" justification. It's true for a couple of weeks, but throughout the majority of a pregnancy, it's just a completely false statement.

The majority of abortions take place during the embryonic stage so for the most part it's a true statement.

[Kizzy]

'The vast majority of abortions are performed at under 13 weeks (91% in 2011). There
has been a continuing increase in the proportion of abortions that are performed under 10
weeks since 2002. In 2011, 78% of abortions were performed at under 10 weeks,
compared to 77% in 2010 and 58% in 2001.'

Embryo to fetus is at 9 weeks, best the procedure is sooner rather than later.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ommentary1.pdf

[the truth]

Originally Posted by LiamPRW

It is not a child, it is an embryo without any development, you can say 'kill the child/baby' all you want, guilt tripping people won't get them to change their minds.. If we go by that logic and every single doctor told women with unwanted pregnancies that they shouldn't have one because they are killing a baby, then not only would we have a whole lot more people in the world, when we're already overpopulated anyway, but there would also be children in the world who weren't wanted and that could lead to them being neglected or abused because women have been forced to keep a baby that they didn't want and couldn't connect or bond with.. If an embryo is terminated before it starts developing into a baby, then it doesn't suffer, it has no knowledge that it ever existed, so how would it suffer?

it is alive in the womb, fact.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Dollface

If a woman gets pregnant when she doesn't want a baby, wouldn't it be better to abort it (considering it isn't a fully formed "baby" yet) ..rather than giving birth to it knowing she doesn't want it, probably not giving it the love it deserves, and possibly neglecting it?
"Kill the baby" what a pathetic attempt at guilt-tripping

no. if shes healthy and not been raped, have the baby and have it adopted. at least that way you dont kill the baby and it gets a chance to live.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'The vast majority of abortions are performed at under 13 weeks (91% in 2011). There
has been a continuing increase in the proportion of abortions that are performed under 10
weeks since 2002. In 2011, 78% of abortions were performed at under 10 weeks,
compared to 77% in 2010 and 58% in 2001.'

Embryo to fetus is at 9 weeks, best the procedure is sooner rather than later.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ommentary1.pdf

at 24 weeks you have fully formed babies. thousands of babies born before 24 weeks have lived long healthy lives .........babies have survived and thrived being born after just 20 weeks. yet were allowed to murder them up to 24 weeks?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by the truth

it is alive in the womb, fact.

Except for near enough the entirety of the first trimester (when the majority of abortions take place) it isn't.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Except for near enough the entirety of the first trimester (when the majority of abortions take place) it isn't.

it is alive and its fully formed during the process....thousands of babies are killed after 20 weeks, at which stage many are fully formed babies. who cares about killing a few thousand fully formed innocent babies eh????

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by the truth

it is alive and its fully formed during the process....thousands of babies are killed after 20 weeks, at which stage many are fully formed babies. who cares about killing a few thousand fully formed innocent babies eh????

We're talking about abortion before the first 12 weeks, which is the time where nothing has developed, so no babies are being killed as they are not babies